COMMENTARY: The Vatican secretary of state’s recent comments on Amoris Laetitia elevate conscience to a degree that relativizes the objectivity of the moral law.

E. Christian Brugger

Vatican Secretary of State Cardinal Pietro Parolin, in a recent interview with Vatican News, contends the controversial reasoning expressed in the apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia (The Joy of Love) represents a “paradigm shift” in the Church’s reasoning, a “new approach,” arising from a “new spirit,” which the Church needs to carry out “the process of applying the directives of Amoris Laetitia.”

His reference to a “new paradigm” is murky. But its meaning is not. Among other things, he is referring to a new account of conscience that exalts the subjectivity of the process of decision-making to a degree that relativizes the objectivity of the moral law. To understand this account, we might first look at a favored maxim of Pope Francis: “Reality is greater than ideas.”

It admits no single-dimensional interpretation, which is no doubt why it’s attractive to the “Pope of Paradoxes.” But in one area, the arena of doctrine and praxis, a clear meaning has emerged. Dogma and doctrine constitute ideas, while praxis (i.e., the concrete lived experience of people) is reality: “Ideas — conceptual elaborations — are at the service of … praxis” (Evangelii Gaudium, 232).

In relation to the controversy stirred by Amoris Laetitia, “ideas” is interpreted to mean Church doctrine on thorny moral issues such as, but not only, Communion for the divorced and civilly remarried, and “reality” is interpreted to mean the concrete circumstances and decision-making of ordinary Catholics.

If we look at the reality, we can see that large numbers (a majority?) of Catholics believe the norms of the Church’s sexual morality are “detached from the realities” of ordinary people. If knowing this we still prioritize an ethical model of obedience-to-doctrine, we dwell dangerously “in the realm of words alone,” clinging to “objectives more ideal than real” and demanding of simple sinners “angelic forms of purity” (Evangelii Gaudium, 231). Therefore — since realities are greater than ideas — the ideas (the moral doctrines) should be reconsidered dialectically to see whether some higher synthesis might be reached where both the ideas and the realities can be reconciled, privileging, of course, the latter.

Reformulating Conscience

Where can we find this higher resolution? By reformulating the traditional Catholic understanding of the moral conscience. The Church has always taught that one has a duty to follow one’s conscience, even if one’s conscience is in error. If the error is not one’s fault, then conscience preserves its dignity (see Gaudium et Spes, 16). This applies to everyone, to Christian and nonbeliever alike. All must abide by their consciences.

In fact, there is sin, even for the atheist, if the voice of conscience is rejected. So far so good.

But now a crack begins to form in the dike. From the maxim, it follows that although there is indeed an objective moral law — the “new paradigm” regularly spurns ethical relativism — that law represents the idea, whereas the reality is the subjective process of people making up their own minds about whether to follow the precepts of the law.

It further follows that if ordinary Catholics looking at their concrete experiences in light of what the Church has to say about some matter (civil remarriage, contraception and homosexual behavior) undertake a sincere process of making up their own minds about what they should do in relation to that matter; and if they conclude that the Church’s moral teaching is erroneous or inadequate; and if in acting on this judgment they choose contrary to the teaching of the Church, then their consciences do not forfeit dignity.

What follows now is entirely alien and inimical to Catholic teaching on conscience. The “new paradigm” holds that if a priest believes that the circumstances of such people don’t admit of simple resolution by conformity to the Church’s moral teaching; and he likewise believes that such persons have undertaken a process of discernment with a sincere desire to do God’s will, the priest, acting on this presumption, may free them to participate in the sacraments of the Church without a firm resolution to cease their objectively sinful behavior.

Although the “new paradigm” claims a kind of deeper and purer continuity with Catholic moral tradition, it actually constitutes a radical departure. I mention here four ways this is so, with no intention of being comprehensive.

It is fatally naïve from a pastoral standpoint.

For although people can be invincibly ignorant in choosing grave evil and so lack culpability, what priest or pastor can know this with certainty? The people themselves cannot tell him they are ignorant of the truth without bringing their ignorance dangerously close to contact with truth’s light. So the priest must infer it, and infer it with sufficient certitude to be sure these people have an inculpable conscience. But such certitude is not accessible to a priest or to any human being. The people may in fact be culpably ignorant, in which case guilty of mortal sin. Their ignorance might be the result of rationalization or self-deception. Or they may be feigning ignorance to convince the priest they are in good faith. Any good pastor knows — if by no other means than by looking at his own heart — the tendency of us sinners to justify our own evildoing.

It presumes that leaving people in invincible ignorance is better than guiding them into the fullness of truth, which implies that choosing gravely evil acts in good faith is neutral to human well-being.

This implication is manifestly false. Evil acts are bad for us even if we choose them in good faith. They deform our character, warp our view of good and evil and harm people, even if we are invincibly ignorant of their badness.

Civilly remarried divorcees, for example, who are freed by priests to return to the sacraments will very likely adopt a misconception about the true character of the Holy Eucharist, one in which the salutary fear of sacrilege has been exorcised. They may grow blind to the example they give to their children about marriage and its indissoluble character, and so become willing to do unjust harm to their children’s belief system. They may encourage other couples in distressed marriages to seek the “way of accompaniment and discernment,” even when the others are not in good faith. They may grow steadily blind to the scandal that their irregular situation threatens to vulnerable brother and sister Catholics.

Others who see them carrying on as if their lives are in full conformity with Christ’s teaching on adultery may come to believe that adultery is not always wrong, or that the question of the validity of the people’s first marriages is not all that important, or that not all consummated Christian marriages are absolutely indissoluble, or that bad acts may sometimes be chosen for good reasons, or that reception of the Holy Eucharist is compatible with adulterous behavior, or that the Eucharist is not all that holy.

In other words, despite being in good faith, they become the kinds of people who see and treat marriage differently from the way Jesus does in the Gospels and who begin to tolerate the unjust harm to others that their example threatens.

So even if they are invincibly ignorant of the fact that their lifestyles and actions are objectively gravely disordered (and some surely will not be), continuing to live in this state is bad for them and for the Christian community. The duty of a priest is to help them understand their knotty situation so they can order their lives according to the life-giving teachings of Jesus Christ.

It minimizes — to the point of rejecting — the truth that heaven and hell are what’s at stake in choosing grave evil.

To institute a pastoral policy leaving people in a putative state of invincible ignorance while they continue manifestly to commit objectively gravely sinful actions minimizes the reality of mortal sin and its consequences for salvation. For since no one but God can know with certainty whether these persons are in good faith, pastors who free them risk placing them in danger of losing their salvation.

Catholic faith teaches that “mortal sin exists also when a person knowingly and willingly, for whatever reason, chooses something gravely disordered”; this includes “every act of disobedience to God’s commandments in a grave matter.”

Sexual acts carried out with someone other than one’s valid spouse are always grave matter. Sexually active civilly remarried divorcees without an annulment may believe that their acts and lifestyles are pleasing to God. But their lifestyles are objectively sinful. And if their first marriages were in fact valid — a possibility that ordinarily only the canonical annulment process can rule out — then they are living, according to the explicit teachings of Jesus, in adultery. To assume they are in good faith because they appear to be and because they say they are right with God is spiritually reckless.

We have heard a lot recently about how we should trust in the unbounded mercy of God for our salvation. It might be noted that the Council of Trent infallibly taught that the faith that justifies is not about trust in God’s mercy alone, however boundless. It is trust working through charity. And Catholic teaching insists that the charity and grace that justifies are lost by every freely chosen mortal sin. Persons may have faith to move mountains, but if they don’t sincerely repent of their sins, their faith is dead and they remain dead in their sins. This is what St. James means when he teaches that “faith without works is dead.” It doesn’t save.

At the same time, anyone who has fallen into mortal sin can rise again by the grace of God. All they need to do is to sincerely repent of their sins in the sacrament of penance and resolve, like the woman caught in adultery, to sin no more.

Its account of conscience transforms the traditional idea of the subjective guilt of sinners into a kind of “get out of jail free” card for those struggling with keeping the Commandments.

Good Catholic priests and directors have not been pastoral Neanderthals. They have always been sensitive to the subjective guilt of sinners. They’ve always understood that complex situations can occur where people’s ability to understand what they are doing is psychologically obscured; and that this can influence their subjective culpability, even to the point of rendering them guiltless in their commission of objectively gravely evil acts.

As Pope John Paul writes in Veritatis Splendor:

“But from a consideration of the psychological sphere one cannot proceed to create a theological category … understanding it in such a way that it objectively changes or casts doubt upon the traditional concept of mortal sin” ( 70).

But this is what the “new paradigm” has effectively done. It has created a new category of persons who in the name of a sincere “individual conscience” are exempted from obedience to Jesus’ moral law. The “new paradigm” calls them “sinners on the way of accompaniment and discernment.” If they decide for themselves that the objective moral norms don’t apply to them, they are free not to follow them and remain Catholics in good standing. How can this square with Veritatis Splendor?:

When it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the “poorest of the poor” on the face of the earth. Before the demands of morality, we are all absolutely equal (96).

The “new paradigm” — although never explicitly saying it — allows priests and bishops simultaneously to affirm that they accept the Church’s moral teaching and yet to liberate “individual consciences” that are not living by that teaching to continue not living by it, while approaching the Table of the Lord.

“The “new paradigm” holds that if a priest believes that the circumstances of such people don’t admit of simple resolution by conformity to the Church’s moral teaching; and he likewise believes that such persons have undertaken a process of discernment with a sincere desire to do God’s will, the priest, acting on this presumption, may free them to participate in the sacraments of the Church without a firm resolution to cease their objectively sinful behavior.”
———————————

To put this into plain English—-The wise leaders of the church are telling us God’s rules don’t have to be followed in using the Sacraments. They have brought forth a “new paradigm”—-so we can “imagine” or “make” ourselves as pure and sinless as we want to be, and therefore, receive the sacraments regardless of the reality of our sinful state.

That sounds horribly similar to government’s solution for this nation’s confused children—-that they can forget God’s male and female sexes and use “gender ideology” to “imagine” or “make” themselves whatever gender they want to be.

Perhaps I should enlarge on the an analogy I used in my last post—-that “the Israelites exchanged God for a golden calf.” The Israelites broke their Old Covenant with God and paid a price for their disobedience. Christ’s Church was instituted for the redemption of all mankind—-under God’s Auspices and His NEW COVENANT—-on the basis of Christ’s death on the cross for our redemption—-and on His teaching as set forth in the New Testament—-without compromise.

What some in the Church are proposing now—-is to renege on our part of the New Covenant agreement with God and intentionally disobey His Will using a “new Paradigm” as a modern-day, golden calf—-a new savior for the divorced, remarried adulterers—probably same-sex marriage and who knows what else—-overriding God’s Will as though we are more compassionate, merciful, and wiser than God. I don’t believe anyone in the Church has the authority or the power to endanger a Covenant Catholicism has faithfully kept for 2,000 years despite attempts to break down its walls. God must already be discouraged by the immorality, sin, killing, hate, destruction of his unborn children, acceptance of sodomy and same-sex marriage—-corrupting all the earth—-as it was before the flood. Our leaders have forgotten that God doesn’t need us—-we need God. Like Nineveh, recognize the need for repentance and humility—-not the ugly, in-you face treatment our loving God is being shown.

Written under my name. Ruth Ruhl-LaMusga

Posted by Nehemiah Austin on Sunday, Mar, 4, 2018 6:10 AM (EDT):

Just for clarity sake; “Good Catholic priests and directors have not been pastoral Neanderthals. They have always been sensitive to the subjective guilt of sinners. They’ve always understood that complex situations can occur where people’s ability to understand what they are doing is psychologically obscured; and that this can influence their subjective culpability, even to the point of rendering them guiltless in their commission of objectively gravely evil acts.” .....what is an example of “subjective guilt of sinners”? Sin is an absolute concept based on spiritual laws for temporal reality emplaced on humanity by the Almighty Creator. If I psychologically obscure something, it’s because of my own sin (plank in my eye, right?)does it not go back to the “Reality is greater than ideas” maxim? Or, my feelings do not validate my spiritual rebellions, simply because I feel that I am more important than the laws that made my life possible. The “Cain, you’re going to have to learn to control your temper” as it were comes to mind when it comes to the question of free will. Cain never had the empirical choice of trees but still….... What am I missing here?

Posted by Janet on Saturday, Mar, 3, 2018 4:56 PM (EDT):

Great comment Robert Fischer. I truly believe this new class of Catholic “BUTTs” started with Vatican II. God help us! Jesus I trust in You!

Posted by Robert Fischer on Saturday, Mar, 3, 2018 1:47 PM (EDT):

Pope Francis through Amoris Laetitia has created a new class of Catholic “BUTTs”, who say, “I believe in the teachings of the Catholic Church, BUT I affirm the right of individual Catholics to ignore these teachings because of their individual consciences.” This is no different than pro-abortion Catholic politicians who say, “I personally oppose abortion but respect a woman’s right to choose abortion for her own unborn baby right up to the very moment of natural birth, and in some cases, after the abortion attempt fails.” This “Catholic BUTT” scandal about abortion is aided and abetted by the vast majority of priests, bishops, and cardinals in the world who continue to offer The Blessed Sacrament at Mass to pro-abortion politicians who openly oppose the teachings of the Catholic Church on the sanctity of human life from conception. If the Catholic Church allows Pope Francis’s interpretation of Amoris Laetitia regarding divorced and remarried Catholics receiving Communion to stand, how soon will it OK for Catholics to support and even have abortions and practice artificial contraception, all the while receiving The Blessed Sacrament at Mass? If you follow what Pope Francis has been doing behind the scenes regarding abortion and contraception, IT MAY NOT BE VERY LONG AT ALL BEFORE THESE MORTAL SINS BECOME TOTALLY ACCEPTABLE CATHOLIC BEHAVIOR. Please, Holy Spirit, come and save our beloved Catholic Church.

Posted by Nicolas Bellord on Friday, Mar, 2, 2018 12:54 PM (EDT):

Carl Kuss: Para 222 of Amoris Laetitia has the following quote from Gaudium et Spes:

“[The couple] will make decisions by common counsel and effort. Let them thoughtfully take into account both their own welfare and that of their children, those already born and those which the future may bring. For this accounting they need to reckon with both the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society and of the Church herself. The parents themselves and no one else should ultimately make this judgment in the sight of God”.

Now many people reading that will think that they can make the decision to limit their family purely on the grounds mentioned i.e. “the material and the spiritual conditions of the times as well as of their state in life. Finally, they should consult the interests of the family group, of temporal society and of the Church herself.” Quite what is meant by the interests of the Church is not clear or explained.

What is omitted are the following words in Gaudium et Spes:

“But in their manner of acting, spouses should be aware that they cannot proceed arbitrarily, but must always be governed according to a conscience dutifully conformed to the divine law itself, and should be submissive toward the Church’s teaching office, which authentically interprets that law in the light of the Gospel. That divine law reveals and protects the integral meaning of conjugal love, and impels it toward a truly human fulfillment.”

Thus Amoris Laetitia is being selective in its quotes about the role of conscience by leaving out the essential warning that conscience must be “conformed to the divine law itself.”

Not everything is explicit in AL but the result is that many now believe that repentance and a firm purpose of amendment are no longer required for those in an irregular situation order before receiving the Eucharist.

Posted by Nicolas Bellord on Friday, Mar, 2, 2018 7:07 AM (EDT):

@Eric Beregerud: You wrote
“If reality trumps ideas, how do we determine what the reality is?” One has to work out some IDEA of what reality is. I am not sure where one goes from there!

Posted by Carl Kuss, L.C. on Friday, Mar, 2, 2018 1:30 AM (EDT):

Nicolas Bellord: I don’t understand what you are saying about AL paragraph 222, and the citation of GS in that paragraph. Couples are urged to follow their conscience and God’s commandments.

I don’t see where it says that priests can give permission to receive the sacraments without a purpose to ammend sins to just because of “sincere intentions”. Or anything vaguely resembling that.

Posted by Eric Beregerud on Thursday, Mar, 1, 2018 8:13 PM (EDT):

If reality trumps ideas, how do we determine what the reality is? Perhaps we describe reality via some form of abstract democracy - so if most Catholics use contraception than the reality is that contraception is ok. Where does that leave the faithful - a minority perhaps, but a devout one - who employ natural family planning? Are they chumps? Unreal? How about a couple that decides to adopt NFP as being both spiritually and physically healthy? More unreal chumps? The Church teaches chastity. I suspect that the very large number of “early” births throughout history indicates that the Church doesn’t get it. So, does reality demand the sexual revolution? Is it not possible if the Church asks for chastity that it does get moderation? That seems to have been the case in the past because those 8 month pregnancies ended with a child having married parents. Now nearly half of children are born to unmarried women. If so, which reality do we call trump?
No one in history has ever lived up to what is asked by the Church. That’s why we have confession and attempt to teach the faith clearly. It strikes me that Francis (or Hegel) is really arguing that if it feels good, do it: it’s real.

Posted by Nicolas Bellord on Wednesday, Feb, 28, 2018 5:33 PM (EDT):

Carl: You wrote “Pope Francis says, correctly, that reality is greater than ideas. (That is also what Thomistic philosophy teaches, by the way.)”

Please explain where you find St Thomas saying that “reality is greater than ideas”. We have been told that these nonsensical principles of Pope Francis come from Peron and then General Rosas but St Thomas?

Posted by Nicolas Bellord on Wednesday, Feb, 28, 2018 5:04 PM (EDT):

Carl: You ask where Pope Francis says what Professor Brugger says. Ok he may not say it explicitly but he does say it implicitly. You only have to look at paragraph 222 of Amoris Laetitia where there is a quote from Gaudium et Spes taken out of context and leaving out the important caveats. The result is that certain Bishops have interpreted the text in the sense described by Professor Brugger. Nowhere does Pope Francis contradict it and indeed in respect of the Buenos Aires Bishops has indorsed it as the only possible interpretation.

As to your description of a ‘rigorist’ you have just set up a straw man to suit your argument without any evidence.

Posted by Renee on Wednesday, Feb, 28, 2018 4:12 PM (EDT):

As one who engaged in marriage preparation for a number of years, this new way of thinking would seem to make it impossible to teach the Church’s understanding of marriage. If one attempts to present the fact that marriage is indissoluble and remarriage impossible, many are those who will be able to say, “but my parents are divorced and remarried and they go to Communion.” The picture can never be purely subjective because one’s subjective choices influence how many others will come to understand objective truth.

Posted by Janet on Wednesday, Feb, 28, 2018 9:46 AM (EDT):

Per lifesitenews.com- A conference to promote the Catholic Church’s constant and unchanging teaching on marriage and family life is planned for Dublin, Ireland, August 22-23 of this year, coinciding with two of the six days of the World Meeting of Families (WMOF). The WMOF is using material that is based upon Pope Francis’ apostolic exhortation Amoris Laetitia. The controversial document has been a source of widespread concern and division in the Church since its April 2016 promulgation due to its apparent inconsistency with the Church’s moral teaching. A video recently put out by the Irish bishops to prepare families for the event contains an interview with an LGBT activist who said she’s “upset” with Catholic teaching on homosexuality, LifeSiteNews reported last week. God Help Us!!!

Posted by Carl Kuss, L.C. on Wednesday, Feb, 28, 2018 8:44 AM (EDT):

E. Brugger:
“But now a crack begins to form in the dike. From the maxim, it follows that although there is indeed an objective moral law — the “new paradigm” regularly spurns ethical relativism — that law represents the idea, whereas the reality is the subjective process of people making up their own minds about whether to follow the precepts of the law.”

Pope Francis says, correctly, that reality is greater than ideas. (That is also what Thomistic philosophy teaches, by the way.)

Pope Francis does not say (Ever!) that people can just make up their minds whether or not they are going to follow the precepts of tha law.

It is E. Christian Brugger who has a murky notion of conscience. He pretends that this murky notion is that which the Church has always taught. According to this murky notion ideas are greater than reality, and therefore there is no need to apply the law with discernment to concrete situations. It is just obvious how it should be applied.

The subjective process of discernment is only complete when there is adequatio intellectus et rei. (Thomistic definition of truth). What E. Christian Brugger apparently is saying is that there needs to be no adequatio. It is just obvious what a law means, because ideas are greater than reality.

That is not the traditional notion of conscience and law, in spite of the fact that Professor Brugger seems to think that it is.

Posted by Carl Kuss, L.C. on Wednesday, Feb, 28, 2018 8:27 AM (EDT):

E Brugger:

“The “new paradigm” holds that if a priest believes that the circumstances of such people don’t admit of simple resolution by conformity to the Church’s moral teaching; and he likewise believes that such persons have undertaken a process of discernment with a sincere desire to do God’s will, the priest, acting on this presumption, may free them to participate in the sacraments of the Church without a firm resolution to cease their objectively sinful behavior.”

Discernment is to find which moral norm in fact applies to a given situation; its basis is the love of truth. Discernment doesn’t mean that one can act in violation of moral norms.

It is just that when one is obsessed with certain moral norms and negates other ones, one can engage in the moral relativism of the rigorist, who is always a rigorist with regard to certain things and a crypto-laxist about other things.

Posted by william g. boco on Tuesday, Feb, 27, 2018 2:29 AM (EDT):

why do we have this Pope? and, what is the Holy Spirit saying to all of us? i am painfully worried where this will lead the Church to, though consoled by the promise of Jesus that He will be with us at all times and the message of Mary that Her Immaculate Heart will prevail.

Posted by Donna F. Bethell on Monday, Feb, 26, 2018 7:06 PM (EDT):

“Reality is greater than ideas” means that what is actually happening is more important than doctrine. So when people change their behavior, doctrine has to change to match or it simply becomes irrelevant. That is the strategy and it is working, as the German bishops move to make official what has been happening for many years: admitting the divorced and remarried to the Sacraments without reform of life.

But why limit the strategy to adultery? Why not any other sin? This is the culmination of what Pope Benedict called the “dictatorship of relativism” and it is the goal of Modernism. What is new is that the strategy is now right out in the open and it has been published in Acta Apostolicae Sedis as “authentic magisterium.”

Posted by Fr. Joe on Monday, Feb, 26, 2018 4:08 PM (EDT):

The crazy thing about this is Thomas Kuhn’ notion of a “paradigm shift” is no longer current in academic circles. Talking about paradigm shifts was a fad in the 1980s.

Posted by Nicolas Bellord on Monday, Feb, 26, 2018 1:19 PM (EDT):

“Reality is greater than ideas” - an idea that comes from the dictators Peron & Rosas. How often has anyone who has queried the morality of what someone is proposing has heard the response “Get real”?

The paradigm shift according to Cardinal Mueller is corruption. Nothing more needs to be said.

From the passage of Gaudium 16 mentioned in the original article: “Conscience frequently errs from invincible ignorance without losing its dignity. The same cannot be said for a man who cares but little for truth and goodness, or for a conscience which by degrees grows practically sightless as a result of habitual sin.”
.
Any priest should understand that if a Catholic comes to him saying, “I’m divorced and civilly remarried, and my conscience OK with that. Please give me permission to receive Holy Communion,” then that priest should evaluate the layperson’s conscience as being in one of two states: (1) ignorance of the Church’s teaching on marriage—in which case the priest should _educate_ the layperson about the Church’s objective teaching, and _counsel_ him or her to follow it, and to _order_ his life according to that teaching _before_ receiving Holy Communion . . . or (2) a state of habitual sin such that it can no longer discern God’s objective law. Sacred Scripture speaks of men with “seared consciences,” who are now senseless to what is good or evil. And without conversion and healing this layperson should not be receiving Communion until he or she amends their life.
.
In neither case can the priest give permission for a layperson to continue to do what is objectively evil, while continuing to receive Holy Communion.

Posted by Terry on Sunday, Feb, 25, 2018 12:37 AM (EDT):

Man has always tried to “out maneuver” God’s teachings and statutes to justify his sins. Adam and Eve tried and it didn’t work out well. Listen to God and walk in His ways by reading the Scripture daily.

Posted by justmaybe on Saturday, Feb, 24, 2018 2:16 PM (EDT):

If “morality” is objective and universal, why does it need a qualifying adjective in the headline: “CATHOLIC Morality”?

Posted by Quadratus on Saturday, Feb, 24, 2018 1:43 PM (EDT):

The principle of doctrine and the process of discernment are not in conflict with each other, unless one discerns to a point that is contrary to a dogmatic precept. Fidelity to Church Tradition and pastoral mercy are not in conflict. God’s mandate to abide in His laws and the human will can be in conflict, and most often are at some level, and that is why man needs grace and ‘good will’. Those with good will, as St. Gabriel announced to the humble shepherds, are those who are ‘poor in spirit’ as Jesus taught. It is the beginning point of conversion and authentic love. God’s laws are not impossible to live as long as one has knowledge of them, the will to live them, and the humility to conform in obedience to the unchangeable truths handed down in the Church. Veritatis Splendor paragraph 103 explains this reality. The current “paradigm shift”, if it proposes to elevate man’s conscience to a level of a “heightened” state of discernment, which somehow can justify a behavior of choice that is contrary to the objective moral law, is a spiritual fantasy. A Catholic conscience should reflect on how it conforms to Truth, in all of its areas of revelation, particularly in sexual morality, because of the gravity and impact of sexual acts on the human mind, will and soul. “Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.” Mt 5:8.

We have massive confusion now in the Church because of the desire of too many leaders to do away with the need for chastity. They see it as an ideal which is impossible to follow for most, and an unreasonable demand in light of “present realities” or “concrete situations” in the world. This emotional and feckless mindset is theologically reductive and can lead to rationalization of sin, and if not checked ends in darkness of the soul and spiritual blindness. “Many will follow their sensual ways, and because of them the way of truth will be reviled.” 2 Peter 2:2. This spiritual darkness, aided by the winds of secularism, causes an actual reversal in what is perceived as good and that which is evil. The prophecy of Isaiah is now being completed in our midst, ever growing in strength since the apostasy of Martin Luther, Henry VIII and the French Revolution: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; Who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”

Posted by David O'Sullivan on Saturday, Feb, 24, 2018 1:10 PM (EDT):

“For although people can be invincibly ignorant in choosing grave evil and so lack culpability, what priest or pastor can know this with certainty? The people themselves cannot tell him they are ignorant of the truth without bringing their ignorance dangerously close to contact with truth’s light. So the priest must infer it, and infer it with sufficient certitude to be sure these people have an inculpable conscience. But such certitude is not accessible to a priest or to any human being. The people may in fact be culpably ignorant, in which case guilty of mortal sin. Their ignorance might be the result of rationalization or self-deception. Or they may be feigning ignorance to convince the priest they are in good faith. Any good pastor knows — if by no other means than by looking at his own heart — the tendency of us sinners to justify our own evildoing.”
Of course, feigning ignorance would be a serious sin…just as a sinner in confession can feign repentance, but how do you expect a pastor to perceive the true situation in either case? Ultimately it is the individual sinner who has to take responsibility, presuming that he understands what he is doing. In the long run maybe it is best to err on the side of mercy.

Posted by Janet on Saturday, Feb, 24, 2018 11:10 AM (EDT):

Per Church Militant:
The Vatican’s liturgical chief (Cardinal Robert Sarah) is calling for a return to reverence for the Eucharist. The Prefect of the Congregation for Divine Worship and the Discipline of the Sacraments, Sarah warns that belief in the Real Presence is eroding — calling this the central plank in Satan’s plans to undermine the Church.

I believe the devil is trying to undermine the Church. Do you?

Posted by Janet on Saturday, Feb, 24, 2018 11:02 AM (EDT):

I accidentally removed myself from receiving notices (accidentally). Will try to
keep-up until corrected.

DO NOT BE AFRAID!!!!!

Posted by Ken St.Denis on Saturday, Feb, 24, 2018 10:37 AM (EDT):

in dealing with the divorced and remarried,part of the problem lies with the old annulment system.It seems in some cases it depended on who you knew on the tribunal as to whether your annulment was accepted as valid…who is to judge whether one person’s reasons are valid and someone else is not valid.The ideal is marriage for life but if the union fell apart and the annulment was denied than you could pay a large sum and appeal to Rome.A process that is out of reach for most.Can the true answer really be to live a life of solitude.?

Posted by Dan on Saturday, Feb, 24, 2018 10:15 AM (EDT):

read “The Shoes of the Fishermen”

Posted by justmaybe on Saturday, Feb, 24, 2018 9:53 AM (EDT):

Why is it assumed that a heightened role for consciences would result in “the death of morality”?

Maybe, just maybe, it would result in a renaissance of morality.

The false assumption that authentic consciences intrinsically lower the morality bar skews your argument. A well-formed conscience is NOT a waiver; it is a necessity. A “personally” well-formed conscience might mitigate against, not sugar coat, real sin.

There is an absence of trust in our fellow lay Catholics to responsibly discern. Indeed, almost every time “discernment” is used here, it is mocked as “Catholic Lite.” Authentic discernment is not the “Free Pass” so many claim.

Why is not the “liberation of consciences” eagerly sought, not dismissively mocked or feared?

I can see how rigorous consciences would be a threat if total homogenization and rigid conformity were our highest-prized virtues. Morality—true morality—cannot be ordered or mandated without the validation of rigorous and prayerful decision-making to under gird it. Loudly proclaim the rigorous conscience. Trust the discerning laity. Be not afraid.

Posted by henry on Saturday, Feb, 24, 2018 9:20 AM (EDT):

We are swerving in the direction of presumption. Lord have Mercy.

Posted by Raymond Gueret on Friday, Feb, 23, 2018 7:38 PM (EDT):

It was explained to me that there has always been controversy in the Church, such as Paul confronting Peter. The Holy Spirit will always guide the Church to be faithful to the Truth. The question I have is: Who is the Paul of today that will confront false teaching?

Posted by Leon Wasinger on Friday, Feb, 23, 2018 6:30 PM (EDT):

I remember meatless Fridays before Vatican II was a way of life and most families, I new stayed faithful to the practice. The church also saw the importance, help us to be faithful to the practice. After Vatican II everything change, meatless Fridays was not as important, up to the individual (70s). Then (90s) the church tried to bring meatless Fridays back saying we never change the practice, but they did because the faithful lost the importance and the habitual practice of remembering. In My thinking this New paradigm is the way to change the churches 2000 year Truth to the modern day Truth, can not, we just all get along together.

Posted by Janet on Friday, Feb, 23, 2018 6:21 PM (EDT):

Sounds like relativism to me: accept the Church’s moral teaching and yet to liberate “individual consciences” that are not living by that teaching to continue not living by it. Fr. Weinandy, who was dismissed by Catholic Bishops says the following:
Granted, the post-Vatican II Church was rife with divisions — disputes over doctrine, morals and the liturgy. These disagreements continue still. However, at no time during the pontificates of John Paul II and Benedict XVI was there ever any doubt as to what the Church teaches concerning her doctrine, morals and liturgical practice. Both recognized that what truly made the Church one is her unalterable apostolic and universal faith and her sacraments, especially the Eucharist, as fount and means of her holiness. ... Such is not the case, in many significant ways, within the present pontificate of Pope Francis. Entire story can be found on Churchmilitant.com

Posted by M on Friday, Feb, 23, 2018 3:53 PM (EDT):

It seems to me that the ” new paradigm” is really the “old paradigm” (rebellion or sin against God), which has plagued the human race since Adam and Eve. It proudly determines that one need not follow the moral teachings of Christ, His Word, the Commandments, or His Church when it conflicts with one’s desires or “conscience”. The person believes that his/her case is different, he is entitled to exceptions, and his conscience reigns supreme. This moral relativism has led to the Fall of Man, original sin, the rise of Protestantism, division within the Church, and the continuing rise of moral confusion and chaos in society. It is simply pride…I know better than God…the “old” paradigm that is called “new”. There really is nothing new under the sun.

Posted by lyle on Friday, Feb, 23, 2018 3:39 PM (EDT):

Premarital Sex and multiple partners is now the norm in the USA, with the statistical odds of most marriages will end in divorce is now the norm as well. For marriage is now a mere civil contract between two humans in the USA, the sacrament of marriage is next to none existent to all, Catholics included.
Amoris Laetitia is a call by the Pope to reverse this course of decline in the foundation of a solid foundation of a civilization is Marriage, the family.
Amoris has nothing to do with “law”, as US Catholics champion, but a return of integrity, clarity and harmony to Marriage, Family as the priority of Family Unity.

Posted by Fr Peter Morello on Friday, Feb, 23, 2018 3:16 PM (EDT):

Ethicist Brugger isolates the New Paradigm as a conscience issue that has plagued morality from time immemorial and lately is brought to the fore by Pope Francis in Amoris. Individualism, Personalism, the premise of personal sovereignty underlying Liberty as an indefinable concept best stated by Supreme Court Justice J Kennedy as a sweeping freedom to form whatever one decides regards every aspect of reality. It typifies the English speaking world and is now a world wide tenet. Pope Francis borrowed “Reality is greater than ideas” from Peron. The young Jorge having perceived in Peron’s reshaping of Christian ideals in context of an advanced social consciousness a remedy to the presumed conflict of doctrine v the human condition lit a light bulb. Conscience as Brugger correctly pinpoints is the lever to revolutionize Catholic thought and social mores. If we perceive justice as we perceive it how can we follow what contradicts it? My studies of conscience from Aristotle to Aquinas found two essential truths that correct that error. The first is that the human soul created in God’s image is intelligent and more, meaning the placement in the soul or prescient knowledge of truth the is the bedrock for forming conscience. The Natural law inscribed upon Man’s heart. The other is the revelation of Christ to which we must adhere without excuse, “If they don’t listen to you shake the dust of your feet It will go harder for them than it was for Sodom and Gomorrah”.

Posted by Leon on Friday, Feb, 23, 2018 3:14 PM (EDT):

New paradigm, The biblical Sodom and gomorrah and the world morality vs morality of christianity and truth of our Lord Jesus Christ. This paradigm change seems like a change from standing up to the world standards to can we just get along together.

Posted by James on Friday, Feb, 23, 2018 3:05 PM (EDT):

Because there seems to be a lack of clear reason in some of their articulations, what +Parolin, +Cupich, +Marx, Fr. Spadaro, et al fail to understand, is once you’ve elevated conscience to the supreme and final arbiter in matters of sexual and family morality nullifying the teaching authority of the Church, they also undermine their own authority to speak and teach on countless other issues. If conscience can discern the permissibility of adultery (for example), then it (conscience) can also discern sinful greed, racist ideas, contempt for creation, etc ... the entirety of Church teaching becomes an ideal that some people are just called to live apart from ... and that is catastrophic.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.